Lecture / Talk Creation Workflow

Source. Base skill adapted from pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow. The Beamer-pedagogy workflow phases (intake → paper analysis → structure proposal → draft slides → polish), the notation-consistency check against the project preamble, and the dual research-talk / pedagogical-lecture mode split are Pedro H.C. Sant'Anna's. The opt-in --triage Step-0 gate (audience + closing-claim pre-write check) is adapted from Scott Cunningham's MixtapeTools:beautiful_deck.

Personalization

This skill resolves placeholders against ~/.claude/state/personal_config.json. See _config/README.md and _config/personal_config.example.json for setup. If the config is missing or a needed field is unset, the skill must surface an error to the user and refuse to proceed rather than guess.

Required config fields:

• personal_config.paths.overleaf_root — root containing project subdirs.
• personal_config.projects[] — each entry should declare overleaf_subdir and optional preamble_tex / bib_file.

Purpose

Create a beautiful, pedagogically clean Beamer deck — either a research talk for a seminar or a teaching lecture for MBAs.

This is a collaborative, iterative process. The user drives the vision; Claude is a thinking partner.

MODE SELECTION

Parse --mode from $ARGUMENTS. If absent, infer from context:

• research mode — invited seminar, conference talk, job-talk style, JMR/MKSCI submission talk. Audience: peer faculty + PhD students. Tone: assumes domain priors, dense with results, citation-heavy, single running empirical thread.
• teaching mode — MBA Quant Marketing or Marketing Analytics lecture. Audience: MBAs with limited stats background. Tone: motivation-first, every formal definition gets a worked example within 2 slides, embedded Socratic questions, 2-3 fragment reveals per deck.

Both modes share the constraints below. Differences are flagged inline as [research] / [teaching].

Modes

• Default (no flag). Mode inferred from path/keywords as described above; scaffold proceeds straight into Phase 0. Behavior unchanged from prior versions of this skill.
• `--triage` (opt-in). Before any .tex is written, run the Pre-Write Triage gate below. Three questions, asked once, then the skill returns to its normal flow. Discipline, not bureaucracy — the gate exists because a deck whose closing claim isn't yet a single sentence will burn an hour of slide-shuffling later.

Pre-Write Triage (only when --triage is passed)

Ask the user, in order:

1. Audience — pick one: peer researchers (econometric / methodological) / MBA students (applied / decision-relevant) / mixed academic-practitioner / brownbag / dissertation committee.
2. Single-sentence closing claim — "After this talk/lecture, the audience should leave knowing _____." One sentence. Not a bullet list.
3. Mode confirmation — research-talk vs. pedagogical-lecture. Overrides the inferred mode if the user picks the other one.

If the user cannot articulate the closing claim in one sentence, refuse to scaffold and surface verbatim: "State the closing claim in one sentence first; the deck structure depends on it." Do not proceed to Phase 0 until the sentence exists.

Record the three answers and carry them into the Pre-Flight Report (audience → "Audience & narrative position"; closing claim → "Pedagogical goal"; mode → "Mode").

CONSTRAINTS (Non-Negotiable)

1. Read the project preamble FIRST — the user's bold-math macros (e.g. \bphi, \bomega, \bz, \bw, \bs), citation style (natbib-apa: \citep, \citealt, \citet), and cross-ref macro (\Cref) all live in preamble.tex.
2. Every new symbol MUST be checked against the preamble's notation conventions — flag conflicts before drafting.
3. Motivation before formalism — no exceptions, both modes.
4. [teaching] Worked example within 2 slides of every definition.
5. [research] A running empirical application (one of the user's own projects, or the topic's canonical example) threaded throughout.
6. Max 2 colored boxes per slide.
7. No \pause or overlay commands unless the user explicitly asks — they hurt PDF export and Beamer→Overleaf diff readability.
8. Transition slides at major conceptual pivots.
9. All citations verified against the project's .bib file; use \citep/\citet per natbib-apa.
10. Work in batches of 5-10 slides — share for feedback, don't bulk-dump.

WORKFLOW

Phase 0: Intake & Context (Pre-Flight Report required)

Read the inputs, then produce a Pre-Flight Report before Phase 1.

Inputs to read:

• Project preamble.tex (look under <OVERLEAF_ROOT>/<PROJECT_SUBDIR>/ or a sibling folder).
• Project .bib file(s) so citation keys can be verified.
• Any source papers / existing slides the user provided.
• A prior deck's .tex if this is a follow-on lecture.

Required Pre-Flight Report block:

## Pre-Flight Report

**Mode:** [research / teaching]

**Sources read:**
- [source 1]: [one-line takeaway — what notation, what result, what figure]
- [source 2]: ...

**Preamble check:**
- Preamble path: [path]
- Existing bold-math macros available: [list from preamble]
- New symbols this deck will introduce: [list]
- Conflicts with preamble: [none / specific clashes]

**Citation check:**
- `.bib` path: [path]
- Citation keys to be used: [list]
- Missing from .bib: [none / list — user must add via `/cite` skill]

**Audience & narrative position:**
- [research] Venue + audience priors. What's the one-slide takeaway?
- [teaching] Where does this lecture sit in the course arc? What did the previous lecture end on?

**Pedagogical goal:** [one sentence]

**Running application:** [which real-world example threads through this deck]

State the goal, get the user's confirmation, then proceed.

Fresh-project fallback. If no preamble exists yet (brand-new Overleaf project), propose a minimal starter preamble with the user's standard macros and natbib-apa citation setup. Present for approval, write it, then continue to Phase 1.

Phase 1: Source Analysis (When Papers Provided)

• Split each paper into chunks; extract key ideas, results, notation.
• Map paper notation → the user's project notation.
• Identify slide-worthy content (theorems, key plots, summary tables).
• Present summary for approval.

Phase 2: Structure Proposal

• Propose outline.
• [research] 5-Act: Motivation → Setting → Identification/Method → Results → Implications.
• [teaching] 3-Part: Why-this-matters → Core idea (build incrementally) → Apply-it (worked example + small exercise).
• List TikZ diagrams and figures needed.
• List new notation to introduce, mapped to preamble macros.
• GATE: User approves before Phase 3.

Phase 3: Draft Slides (Iterative)

• Work in batches of 5-10 slides.
• Check every new symbol against the preamble; use existing bold-math macros rather than re-defining bolds.
• Use \citep{} for parenthetical, \citet{} for in-line, \citealt{} for "see also" lists.
• Use \Cref{...} for all internal cross-refs.
• Apply mode-specific patterns:
• [teaching] Embed 2-3 Socratic prompts; use 3-5 fragment reveals at problem→solution moments; pair every definition with a worked example.
• [research] Lead each section with a one-sentence claim; keep one running empirical thread; budget ~1 slide per minute of talk.

Phase 4: Figures & Code

• R or Python scripts following the user's project conventions (no Stata).
• TikZ diagrams inline in the Beamer source so the deck stays self-contained.
• Save plot data (RDS / parquet) alongside scripts for reproducibility.

Phase 5: Polish & Compile

• Compile via latexmk -pdf <deck>.tex from the Overleaf project root.
• Run /slide-excellence for the full multi-agent pass.
• If any TikZ blocks exist, expect tikz-reviewer to flag label-overlap issues — iterate until APPROVED.

Post-Creation Checklist

[ ] Deck compiles without errors via latexmk
[ ] No overfull hbox > 10pt
[ ] All citations resolve against the project .bib
[ ] [teaching] Every definition has motivation + worked example
[ ] [research] Running empirical thread is visible across sections
[ ] Max 2 colored boxes per slide
[ ] [teaching] 2-3 Socratic questions embedded
[ ] Transition slides between sections
[ ] At least 1 running application threaded throughout
[ ] New notation does not collide with preamble macros
[ ] /slide-excellence run; critical issues addressed

Failure modes

• Preamble not found. Don't invent bold-math macros from scratch — ask the user to point to the project's preamble, or scaffold a fresh one as in Phase 0 fallback.
• Citation key invented. Never fabricate a .bib key. If a citation is missing, list it under "Missing from .bib" in the Pre-Flight Report and have the user run /cite first.
• Stata / SAS code suggested. Never. This skill targets R + Python only.
• Mode mismatch. A research talk with MBA-style "let's think about why this matters" framing will feel patronizing to a JMR audience; an MBA lecture with proof-density will lose the room. If the mode inference is uncertain, ASK before drafting.

Out of scope

• Compiling for the user — the user compiles in Overleaf; this skill only suggests the latexmk command for local previews.
• Editing PowerPoint or Google Slides — Beamer only.
• Generating Quarto-flavored slides.
• Reviewing an existing deck (use /slide-excellence for that).